MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076073637 · doi:10.1080/07060660109506948

Impact of trichothecenes on <i>Fusarium</i> head blight [ <i>Fusarium graminearum</i> ] development in spring wheat ( <i>Triticum aestivum</i> )

2001· article· en· W2076073637 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François Eudes, A. Comeau, S. Rioux, J. Collin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusariumTrichotheceneMycotoxinBiologyVomitoxinInoculationCultivarFungi imperfectiStrain (injury)AgronomyGenotypeHorticultureBotanyGeneZearalenoneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

>Fusarium head blight pathogens (Fusarium spp.) produce trichothecenes that have been demonstrated to play a role in the pathogenesis. To test the impact of trichothecenes on a broad range of genotypes, 18 spring wheat lines (Triticum aestivum) were inoculated with two Fusarium graminearum strains, the genetically modified GzT40 strain, which could not produce trichothecene, and the wild parental Gz3639 strain. During 3 weeks of observation, the two fungal strains showed extreme differences in aggressiveness in all but three of wheat genotypes tested. While the GzT40 mutant did not spread into the rachis, the wild-type strain quickly spread in the spike. This work confirms earlier findings that trichothecenes are a principal determinant of F. graminearum aggressiveness on most spring wheat cultivars. Therefore, trichothecenes may serve as a useful screening tool in programs breeding for resistance to Fusarium head blight of wheat.Key words: trichothecenes, deoxynivalenol, mycotoxins, Fusarium head blight, Fusarium graminearum, spring wheat, Triticum aestivum.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207